The bill passed today will restore alewives, a key forage fish, to the St. Croix River, pictured here. Photo: CanadaGood @ flickr

We at CLF applaud today’s vote by the Maine state legislature to restore Alewives to their native habitat in the St. Croix River.

Today, the legislature voted to pass a bill that will reopen the fish ladder at the Grand Falls Dam, allowing the key forage fish to reach 98% of the St. Croix. This vote caps a two-year effort by CLF advocates to restore a fishery that numbered close to 3 million until a state law closed the fish ladder and the number of alewives dwindled to less than 10,000. Last year CLF successfully filed suit against the EPA to enforce the Clean Water Act’s provision related to the state law and then filed suit against the State to invalidate that law.

This bill corrects a practice of fisheries mismanagement that has been allowed to stand for almost two decades. It properly places good science and the interest of many over the self interests of a few. While litigation is the principal tool of our trade, it is wonderful to see the Legislature right this wrong and we hope to be able to dismiss our case against the State soon.

Introduced in March 2013, the bill found strong support among a number of the groups invested and concerned with the restoration of the St. Croix River and its native fish. These groups include Maine fishermen, environmentalists, anglers, federal agencies, and the Passamaquoddy.

The alternative bill proposed by the LePage administration was a half-measure that would have still kept alewives from reaching most of their native habitat.

This vote ensures alewives will now return to the St. Croix River. It is exactly the result that our legal advocacy was aiming for, and we applaud it as an important step forward.

CLF has been blogging on this topic regularly. To read those posts, click here.

A manure spreader overloads a St. Albans farm field with manure resulting in a direct discharge to Lake Champlain in 2007.

CLF is committed to protecting clean water AND to supporting a healthy farming economy in Vermont and throughout New England (read more about our food and farm work here). At CLF we know we Vermonters can grow our food without poisoning our water.  We have no choice if we are going to achieve a thriving New England for generations to come.

That’s why CLF has worked so hard to get Vermont officials to admit that intensive dairy operations and other types of industrial farming that confine large numbers of animals in small spaces needed to obtain Clean Water Act permits for discharges of manure and other pollution into waters of the state. Vermont is one of the last states, and in fact may be the last state to issue a permit to minimize and eventually eliminate these discharges from “Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations” (CAFOs) under the Clean Water Act.

In 2008, CLF issued a detailed report titled “Failing our Waters, Failing our Farms: Vermont Regulators Turn A Blind Eye to Threat of Illegal Pollution from Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations.” The report relied on years of agency inspection documents showing numerous cases of manure and other discharges that clearly violated the Clean Water Act. CLF’s report called for the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, the state regulators who run the federal Clean Water Act program in Vermont, to begin requiring polluting operations to obtain Clean Water Act permits.

Sadly, CLF’s call to action went unheeded, and cases of unchecked CAFO pollution continued, resulting in contamination of Lake Champlain and other lakes, rivers, and streams throughout Vermont. Particularly, agricultural discharges can result in harmful bacteria outbreaks and in the explosive growth of harmful blue-green algae that can make water unsafe for swimming, fishing, boating, and drinking.

When state officials failed to act, CLF, with pro bono representation from Vermont Law School’s Environment and Natural Resources Clinic, petitioned the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to take over Clean Water Act permitting because it was clear that Vermont officials lacked the political will to adequately deal with a major group of polluters in a manner consistent with the nation’s landmark clean water law. EPA officials took CLF’s allegations seriously. Though Vermont officials initially resisted acceptance of this core water protection obligation, the last couple years have seen breakthroughs in the negotiation over the petition which in part resulted in the issuance of today’s long-awaited draft permit as well as forthcoming commitments by the state and EPA to dedicate more resources to CAFO inspection and enforcement.

CLF applauds Governor Shumlin, Agency of Natural Resources Secretary Deb Markowitz, and Department of Environmental Conservation Commission David Mears for showing the leadership to have Vermont at last embrace this important Clean Water Act obligation. Though the issuance of a draft permit is merely a small step in the right direction–CLF hopes it is a clear signal that Vermont may be ready to stop backpedaling when it comes to protecting lakes, rivers, and streams from this serious source of pollution.

CLF looks forward to examining this draft carefully and to filing comments to ensure that the permit contains all of the protections the law requires. I urge all who care about water that is safe for swimming, fishing, boating, and drinking and that supports fish and other wildlife, to examine the Draft Permit (available from the Agency’s web site here) and to send comments supporting its final adoption. There is no doubt that the powerful interests of Big Agriculture will continue to fight this positive step forward, even though many other farmers are welcoming the opportunity to be better stewards of our shared water resources.

I love rivers.  In fact, I love all things water. And so today I’m celebrating the 40^th birthday of the Clean Water Act, perhaps America’s most effective and far-reaching environmental law.

I grew up on a farm in upstate New York and spent a lot of time stomping around in our ponds, streams, and wetlands catching frogs, listening to spring peepers, watching birds and muskrats and ermine. We fished whenever we could and had a family challenge about who would be the first in the water after ice-out in the spring and last out before (or after) the frost in the fall. We marked the seasons by the coming and going of the ice, by the water temperature in the ponds, and, in some years, watched anxiously as drought lowered water levels and put our water supplies at risk. All of this has led to a connection to waters that has infused my life, including my professional career.

One of my earliest memories from over 40 years ago and leading to my lifetime of advocacy for clean water is of my father taking me to the Cayadutta Creek in Fonda, New York to see the stream running bright red and foul from pollution from the tanneries in Gloversville and Johnstown. I was overwhelmed by the image of the creek flowing by as a river of blood. My dad fumed that creeks and rivers all over were being poisoned by such pollution.

Cuyahoga River Burns in 1969

So it’s not a surprise that my family watched the news with outrage as America was shown the image of the Cayahoga River in Ohio literally burning in 1969. Perhaps we were told at the time that the river had burned on nine occasions in the prior 100 years. But in any case, that fire became the symbol of unacceptable water pollution for us and for millions of Americans who called on Congress for action. It helped spur the first Earth Day in 1970, and thankfully, it contributed to the political urgency for passage of the Clean Water Act on October 18^th 1972, 40 years ago today.

Passage of the Clean Water Act by the United States Congress marked the end of an amazing political process. On this day 40 years ago with strong, bi-partisan votes in the House (247 yes and 23 no (with 160 not voting)) and Senate (52 to 12 (with 36 not voting)), Congress overrode the wrongheaded veto of the law by President Nixon. Many members of Congress from both parties voted yes, but just as significant were those that didn’t vote. By consciously withdrawing from the debate, many Republicans heeded the voices of their constituents, defied a President of their own party, and allowed the override votes to succeed.

What has been the result of this historic event? The Clean Water Act became law and much of the severe industrial and sewage pollution of our precious waters has been brought in check. The Cayadutta Creek no longer runs blood red, and the Cuyahoga has recovered to the point that it won’t catch fire. That is a 40^th birthday present that we all can enjoy.

But, it also raises the question: if the Cuyahoga were burning today, could we pass the Clean Water Act?

I like to think that Americans would pull together again and demand action. However, the reality is that we are now living with “dead zones” that are threatening our communities and industries in Chesapeake Bay, Long Island Sound, Narragansett Bay, on Cape Cod, and in Lake Champlain. The dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico ranges from 6-7000 square miles – bigger than the State of Connecticut! This is the result of nitrogen and phosphorus pollution that is pouring into our waters from agriculture, lawn fertilizing, excessive development, and sewage discharges.

Blue-Green Algae Fouls Lake Champlain 2011

And, just two years ago, we all watched with horror, as the Gulf burned from the BP oil spill.

So, this 40^th birthday of the Clean Water Act should also serve as a reminder to us all that clean water is as important now as it ever has been and there is still much more to do.

Here at CLF, we have a long legacy of fighting for clean water across New England. CLF filed the Federal Court lawsuit that led to a clean Boston Harbor. We have held numerous polluters accountable for discharges into New England’s waterways. We stopped oil and gas drilling off of New England’s coasts.

Today, we are fighting to protect waters from nitrogen and phosphorus pollution from Cape Cod to the Charles River, New Hampshire’s Great Bay to Long Island Sound, and from Narragansett Bay to Lake Champlain.  We are working with cities and towns to create green infrastructure that cleans up stormwater pollution and beautifies our communities.  All of our efforts are possible because of Congress’s action 40 years ago today.

Happy 40^th Birthday Clean Water Act!

Wikipedia describes the Standells’ 1965 classic “Dirty Water” as “a mock paean to the city of Boston and its then-famously polluted Boston Harbor and Charles River.” Though fans of local sports teams have embraced the song that plays so often over stadium loud speakers, most people would agree that they’d rather not have their capitol city mockingly identified with “famously-polluted” waters. That’s especially true in these hot summer months when you want to be able to swim at a City beach, fish from an urban jetty, or paddle a local river without fear of contacting raw sewage and toxic algae scums.

Nearly thirty years ago, CLF embarked on a clean water campaign to end Boston’s “Dirty Water” era. CLF lawsuits spurred significant public investments in cleanup of the Boston Harbor and have paid huge dividends as evidenced by all the restaurants and bars that have popped up along the Seaport District waterfront as the Harbor became cleaner. This past weekend, Boston even hosted the Red Bull Cliff Diving championships with divers plunging straight into the Harbor wearing nothing but speedos–something that would have been unthinkable in the years when the Harbor was essentially an open sewer.

CLF works for water that is safe for fishing, even in urban environments. Photo by Chris Devers @ Flickr Creative Commons

We’ve made great progress, but there is still work to be done. The Clean Water Act, which turns 40 this year, promises water that is safe for swimming and fishing regardless of whether local waterways lie in a major tourist district or are situated in a neighborhood where industrial activity and working waterfronts are still part of the urban landscape. Securing Clean Water Act compliance is as much about protecting the health and quality of life of Bostonians in every city neighborhood as it is about making the Hub a desirable place for tourists and the businesses that cater to them. The good news, as reported on the front page of the Boston Globe, is that CLF, EPA, the Boston Water and Sewer Commission, the City of Boston, and numerous other partners are redoubling efforts to deliver on the law’s promise for the benefit of all Bostonians.

As today’s Globe headline proclaims, Boston is embarking on a new “effort to curtail sewage” and deal more effectively with polluted runoff and sewage discharges from storm drainage pipes. The effort comes as a result of another lawsuit filed by CLF against the Boston Water and Sewer Commission for violations of its Clean Water Act permits. EPA joined the suit in 2010. Shortly thereafter the parties turned their attention to negotiating a solution to Boston’s remaining water woes with emphasis on:

•  removing illegal sewage connections that can send household sewage to Constitution Beach, Tenean Beach, and other popular swimming spots
• monitoring to quickly detect and eliminate illegal sewage connections, and
• implementing innovative techniques to filter pollution from urban runoff using more natural elements such as trees and gardens specially designed to absorb stormflows.
• Inspecting active construction and industrial sites to ensure proper pollution controls are in place

The settlement recognizes that, even if we solve all of the sewage problems, the foul brew of metals, bacteria, oils, and other harmful pollutants that can run off the urban landscape after rainstorms and snowmelts must also be addressed before we can put Boston’s “Dirty Water” era into the history books once and for all. To get to a sense of what that cleaner, greener future will look like as City officials begin redesigning pavement-heavy public spaces like City Hall Plaza, visit the Charles River Watershed Association page, which features a report on green infrastructure in and around Boston.

CLF is proud of its role in the cleanup of Boston’s iconic waterways. The investments in clean water spurred by CLF’s advocacy are paying off and will continue to do so if all of those who are responsible for pollution control follow through on Clean Water Act commitments. When that happens, it will be time for a new song about how much Bostonians love their clean water.

The other night, I broiled a gorgeous piece of striped bass for dinner. Though I savored each bite of this healthy, delicious, lean protein, I couldn’t help think of the grim images of other sizeable stripers that washed up dead in the latest fish kill to occur on the shores of Cape Cod in late July.

Healthy striped bass like these inhabit many of New England's coastal waters. Nutrient pollution from septic systems creates toxic algae blooms in Cape Cod waters that threaten these fish. Photo credit: Bemep @ Flickr Creative Commons

According to the Cape Cod Times, on July 25, Falmouth residents began calling local officials complaining about foul odors and dead fish washing up on the shores of Little Pond Estuary–one of the many areas along Cape Cod where fresh water from the land mixes with salt water from the ocean. Upon investigation, officials confirmed the presence of what one resident referred to as a “heap of large dead fish…on the shore.”  Among the dead fish were dozens of striped bass, some measuring as long as 40″. The story noted that this is not the first fish kill of its kind in Falmouth’s Little Pond, nor is it the first on Cape Cod. You can see pictures of the dead stripers and read the full article here, and also check out a previous post to this blog discussing another Cape fish kill that occurred a couple of years ago: “1,000 Dead Fish on Cape Cod: When Will the Killer Be Brought to Justice?”

The tragic slaughter of these beautiful fish–much beloved by sport fishermen who bring tourism revenue to the Cape and other places on New England coast that these hard-fighting fish frequent–could have been stopped.

Scientists who investigated the fish kill identified nitrogen pollution from nearby septic systems as the main culprit.  You see, nitrogen is a common component of human wastewater. When too much of that wastewater flows unchecked into an estuary, the nitrogen feeds explosive blooms of toxic algae that  make the water smell foul, unpleasant to look at, and unsafe to swim in. Blooms of harmful algae also throw the entire ecosystem out of balance, resulting in an underwater environment without enough oxygen for even fast-swimming fish like stripers to survive.

Normally, most of the nitrogen that leaches from underground septic systems is retained in the soils. But, as this fish kill demonstrates, Cape Cod’s sandy soils present a unique problem because they are so porous that the pollution flows right through them and bubbles up into surface estuaries. Because of this unique pollution problem and the dire need to address it before more slaughter occurs, CLF is pushing EPA to recognize that the Clean Water Act requires these septic-system polluters to clean up their act.

Last week, a federal judge in Boston accepted the joint schedule that CLF and our partner Buzzard’s Bay Coalition worked out with EPA lawyers so that the Cape Cod cleanup litigation can move forward.  You can read more about our lawsuit and the clean water solutions that will help save the stripers here.

Photo by Robert F. Bukaty, courtesy of Portland Press Herald Archives

As mentioned in prior posts here and here, CLF’s lawsuit to reopen the St. Croix River to alewives resulted in this letter from EPA agreeing that the Maine Alewife Law violated water quality standards for the St. Croix.

Yesterday, the Maine Attorney General responded to that letter here and the response is disappointing to say the least.  The first half of the letter is not even related to the Alewife Law but rather a gratuitous attempt to bolster the State’s efforts to restrict the jurisdiction of the Passamaquoddy Tribe and other Maine tribes.  The second half of the letter does not contest the findings in EPA’s letter that the Alewife Law constitutes a change in the St Croix’s water quality standard but rather attempts to justify that change as a fishery management exercise unrelated to the Clean Water Act.

As I noted in a interview yesterday on MPBN, you can put lipstick on a pig but it is still a pig.  Nor is the State’s “commitment” to the so-called adaptive management plan for the St Croix currently under consideration by the International Joint Commission of any real value.  As noted in this article by Colin Woodard, the adaptive management plan may be better than nothing but just barely.

What this means for the St Croix is really nothing more than status quo – passage at the Grand Falls dam will remain closed to alewives as long as the State is willing to let bad science and a small minority of self-interested fishing guides call the shots.  This is even more unpalatable given the current crisis that our lobster fishery is in. A resurgent alewife population (close to 3 million before the State closed fish passage) could only help that industry that can use alewives as bait fish. A robust alewife population would also help the Maine groundfish and whale watching industries, for whom alewives are a key source of food.  For these reasons, as well as the health of the St Croix ecosystem as a whole, CLF remains committed to restoring alewives to their native habitat in the St. Croix.  Stay tuned for next steps.

The recent Congressional hearing entitled “EPA Overreach and the Impact on New Hampshire Communities” accomplished one thing – it proved that to some, politics are more important than cleaning up the Great Bay estuary.

Congressmen Guinta (R-NH) and his colleague from California, Congressman Issa (who chairs the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform) came to Exeter on June 4 for one reason – to seek confirmation of what they already believed: that EPA is somehow engaging in “overzealous” regulation or “overreach” in taking action required by the Clean Water Act to reduce nitrogen pollution in Great Bay. The only invited speakers were four representatives of the Municipal Coalition – a small group of vocal municipalities doing everything in their power to delay EPA’s permitting process – and EPA Region 1 Administrator, Curt Spalding. Notwithstanding a packed room, the public was not allowed to speak.

Despite numerous claims by the Municipal Coalition that the science is flawed, not a single scientist was asked to testify about the real pollution threats to the Great Bay estuary. Instead we had a Congressman from California listening to a paid consultant from Washington, DC whose only apparent objective was to bash EPA.  Hardly a sound or non-biased approach to determine what action needs to be taken to save our estuary.

The mere title of the hearing made it clear that Congressmen Guinta and Issa had their minds made up before the hearing even began, and that they had one goal in mind – to undermine EPA’s approach to reducing nitrogen pollution in the estuary.  In fact, EPA is proceeding on sound science – based on years of analysis – and doing exactly what is required to restore and protect the estuary before it reaches a tipping point.

At a time when we need to be solving the serious pollution problems threatening the Great Bay estuary, it’s disturbing to see such a concerted effort to denounce the science that clearly documents the estuary’s continuing decline and the need for meaningful action. While other Great Bay communities are willing to move constructively toward solutions, it’s especially sad to see the small handful of communities comprising the Municipal Coalition resort to raw politics and attempt to capitalize on anti-environment, anti-EPA currents in D.C.

Rather than playing politics with the estuary in an effort to disrupt the permitting process, we would better served by Rep. Guinta if he helped communities secure funding to help with upgrades to wastewater treatment plants. Those sorts of solutions – not obfuscation – are what I expect from my government officials.  And we certainly don’t need someone from California telling us in New Hampshire how to clean up our waters.

In the end, the only real outcome from Monday’s hearing was another day wasted. EPA staff had to invest time defending themselves in a hostile and politically motivated environment rather than proceeding with real solutions required to restore and protect the Great Bay estuary.  Enough is enough. The time has come to take real action and support EPA in its efforts.

Image courtesy of USDA @ flickr.

Last week, CLF filed a lawsuit against the EPA and Curtis Spalding, EPA Regional Administrator, Region 1. (You can find a copy of the suit here, and copy of the press release here.) I want to take a moment to explain why this lawsuit is important.

The alewife is a critical “keystone” species in marine and fresh waters – it is an important source of food for many fish and marine mammals and for numerous birds.  The alewife is a native fish to many Maine rivers and is anadromous, meaning it starts its life in freshwater ponds and lakes, migrates down river to the ocean where it spends most of its life and then returns to its native waters to spawn.

As on many Maine rivers, alewives on the St. Croix River were all but extirpated due to pollution and the damming of the river. However, in the early 1980’s, the population of alewives in the St. Croix River was restored, reaching more than 2.5 million a year due to cleaner water and effective fish passage at the dams on the river.  But in 1995 the Maine legislature passed a bill specifically designed to block alewife passage at the Woodland Dam and Grand Falls Dam on the St. Croix River, based on what turned out to be unsubstantiated claims that alewives were causing a decline in the non-native smallmouth bass population in the St. Croix watershed. In 2008, even after those claims were found to be without merit, the Maine legislature amended the law to allow alewives passage only at Woodland Dam, restoring only 2% of the natural habitat previously available to alewives – effectively preventing them from accessing 98% of their natural habitat in the St Croix above the Grand Falls Dam.

As a result of this change, as I said in my letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, “the Maine Legislature intentionally and effectively changed the water quality standards for that section of the St. Croix [from Class A] to Class B.” As we allege in our suit, this action obligated the EPA to review and reject that change pursuant to its non-discretionary duties under the Clean Water Act (or CWA).

Under the Clean Water Act, any change to an existing water quality standard must be consistent with the state’s anti-degradation policy and must be submitted to the EPA for review. The de facto change to the water quality standards of the St. Croix was not submitted to the EPA for review, nor did EPA review the change for approval or disapproval, as required.

As a result, Maine was allowed to circumvent its responsibilities, and the EPA failed to fulfill its legal obligations.

As I said in the press release, “The law is fundamentally at odds with the legal requirement that the St. Croix River provide natural habitat unaffected by human activity for these fish and EPA has a continuing obligation to review and reject this change in that requirement.”

I was joined in my statement by Bill Townsend, a longstanding member of CLF and one of the deans of Maine’s environmental community, who noted that when he served as President of Maine Rivers, it obtained the funding and data to support studies that alewives are not detrimental to small-mouth bass populations, the original basis for the law. “The failure of the Maine Legislature to change the law in the face of that evidence and of the EPA to take every possible step to address that wrong is unacceptable.”

For more, find copies of my letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson here, CLF’s filing here, and our press release here.

Stay tuned for more!

On Monday, June 4, Congressman Darrell Issa of California and Congressman Frank Guinta of New Hampshire are hosting a hearing in Exeter entitled “EPA Overreach and the Impact on New Hampshire Communities.”

Based on the title of the hearing, it appears Congressmen Issa and Guinta already have made up their minds, before the hearing even begins, that EPA is somehow ‘overreaching’ in its approach to reducing nitrogen pollution in the estuary. This is simply not the case. EPA is proceeding on sound science and doing exactly what is required to restore and protect the estuary before it’s too late. At a time when we need to be solving the serious pollution problems threatening the Great Bay estuary, it’s disturbing to see such a biased and overtly political response.

If you care about the future of the Great Bay estuary, I urge you to attend this politically motivated hearing. But don’t expect to be allowed to speak – only invited guests are given that right.  Would it surprise you to learn that four of the five invited speakers represent the Municipal Coalition, the very group of communities – Exeter, Newmarket, Dover, Rochester and Portsmouth – that have brought suit against the NH Department of Environmental Services and are doing everything in their power to delay action on cleaning up the Bay?  The sole person testifying on behalf of the EPA will be Region 1 Administrator Curt Spalding.  Not exactly a balanced panel.

In a prepared statement issued on Thursday, Rep. Guinta said that he’s concerned with “over-zealous regulation.”  We cannot escape the need for immediate action.  Further delays will only lead to more pollution, further degradation, and higher costs. The science continues to tell us that the health of the estuary is in decline and asking communities clean up their act is hardly over-zealous regulation.

I urge you to join at the hearing and silently voice your support for EPA and the need to take immediate action for a clean and healthy estuary. The hearing will be held at the Exeter Town Offices, 10 Front Street, beginning at 9 am. If you would like more information, please contact me to learn how you can help save Great Bay.

– For more, visit: http://www.clf.org/great-bay-waterkeeper/ You can also follow me on Facebook and Twitter